Hi Everybody: Sorry to post such an elementary question about validation, but I'm somewhat confused. If I'm tracking right, unless you received a dunning letter from a CA that list the mini-miranda language and you fail to respond in 30 days, the CA doesn't have to validate and thus can verify with the CRA if you dispute? Is this right? In the event you pull your credit report and find a CA TL's that you never received a dunning letter from, can the CA still refuse to validate and thus verify with the CRA's since by this stage, you're way beyond the 30 days. I understand that the CA doesn't have to validate, but can they still continue the collection process if you're outside of the 30 days? I started out with something like 60 TL and I'm now down to like 16. The DV letters have been working quite well along with the 1-2 punch method but I'm now down to some CA that are telling me they do not have to validate after the 30 day clause in §809(b) has expired? Can someone straighten me out here? Thanks. Dan
Outside the thirty day window, they do not have to provide validation and yes, they can continue collection activity which includes reporting and verifying information. If you've not received anything, you can make the argument that they never sent anything and thus, you are within the thirty day window. More importantly, this opens a five day window if you present the above argument wherein they have to notify you of the nature of the debt. They can't do this. So, it gives you two FDCPA violations if they don't validate it and if they don't contact you in writing within five days. Meaningless in terms of litigation but, good for leverage. Now, another thing to look for is whether the account is marked as being in dispute on your reports. That is both an FCRA and a FDCPA violation. FCRA violations are per violation not, per action. Again, more leverage. Sounds as if you're down to what most credit restorers get to . . . a few that are going to stick. You'll probably have to sue these companies if you want a totally clean report and more ammunition is a good thing. However, you will also want to weigh whether it is worth it. That is too say, that if you have a 680 score, can get credit at decent rates, then it is probably not a great idea to sue someone for a technical violation or two. Still, you could . . .
Did you dispute directly with the CA before disputing with the CRA, and before receiving a dunning letter? The 30 day period does not begin until you receive proper notice as described in 809 (a). If you never received that notice in writing, you are not past the validation period. If you did receive notice and failed to dispute in the 30 day period, the only difference is that they do not have to follow the procedures in 809 (b). They can continue collection activity, but they are required to mark the account as in dispute when communicating with the CRA per 807 (8).
Thanks Pale Ride and apexcrsrv for your valuable imput. Practically all the CA's names I got were from their TL on my credit profile. I don't recall getting any dunning letters from them. The beginning of my letter simply state that pursuant to FDCPA § 809 I request validation, blah, blah. Once I got the green card back, I disupted with the Big Three. EX screwed me by disputing every single TL all at once. Of course, they won't reinvestigate. My remaining CA are just not cooperating. Some mark their TL as disupted, some don't even bother. I've sent waiver or estoppel letters and some folded, others just continue to report and verify. I assuming that I can argue that the 30 day period begins when the CA receives my DV since I never received their dunning letters, right? I think it might be time to contact a NACA attorney to pushed these CA a little harder.
If you never recieved a dunning letter, then you can argue that you are within the 30 day period in which they must validate before taking any additional collection activity. More importantly, you can opine that they must give you the nature of the debt and to whom it is owed within five days (in writing) since your letter would be the first contact.
